Begin a New Adventures, with oldest Lineage 2 Community!
What's next? You can create game account. Have fun in the forums!
  • https://forum.lineage2dex.com/threads/16500/

Teh Official OMG WTF thread.

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
I haven't heard of those guys. Perhaps it is possible for more people to share an opinion about something?
Well if you like sharing opinions with some of the most idiotic people I've ever seen (one of which is a giant troll who doesn't even really care what he says as long as people buy it) then I guess go ahead.

Science, though, is not a matter of opinion.
 

Sere

Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
323
Regarding that asian kid killing those people ... I doubt they were Russian spies. Sure it's possible, but unlikely imo.
 

Bavanai

Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
909
Well if you like sharing opinions with some of the most idiotic people I've ever seen (one of which is a giant troll who doesn't even really care what he says as long as people buy it) then I guess go ahead.

Science, though, is not a matter of opinion.
Except I do not disregard science, I negate some of the consensuses held by science. It's healthy for science to have opposing views and theories, it's what drives it. If we'd have universal consensus about everything we can't exactly prove how we think it happened then it wouldn't be science anymore, it would be religion.
 

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
Except I do not disregard science, I negate some of the consensuses held by science. It's healthy for science to have opposing views and theories, it's what drives it. If we'd have universal consensus about everything we can't exactly prove how we think it happened then it wouldn't be science anymore, it would be religion.
You're not a scientist, amateur or otherwise. Your "opposing views and theories" are 100% you sitting in your armchair going "hmm" and "mah feelings say it's like that, what if it is..." and "isn't life mysterious".

You'll excuse me if I don't think highly of your opposing views and theories. And you'll also excuse me if I don't think highly of any opposing views and theories which don't stand up to scrutiny, don't make any predictions, can't be consistent, haven't been used in practice and have zero active real-world applications.

There's a reason science has consensus on some things. And it's not because we've looked really, really good at them and they sound so true. It's because they're USED and they WORK and they have not once behaved like they shouldn't.
 

HellFire

Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
690
Actually if you know enough about it it's not really unlikely at all. You have a giant, planet-sized blob of chemicals interacting with eachother, overall the chance for life appearing should be near-certain because of the large sample size involved. If not on this planet, then on the countless others that are sure to be in this and other galaxies. In other words, if it was possible for life to appear, then considering the size of the universe it's very unlikely for life to NOT appear.



Dude no offense but the things you're so in awe of are already known and documented you just need to go out and fucking read about'em.
No offense taken but I'm pretty sure there is nothing known about that "trigger". It's not like I'll find a documentary showing the very first life form that suddenly went "Oh I should write a complex thingy that will evolve into a perfect eye in 300.000 years or whatever it took,can't remember. That's what I wanted to say. I'm not in awe that a lifeform managed to create it,I'd like to know what exactly made that specific lifeform develop an eye and how did it know what to do and how to "create" it,magic right? As for the near-certain chance,they are trying to "create" life for years now and have not been successful,trying to recreate the moment and constantly failing,creating something that truly lives from certain chemicals ain't exactly easy,lol. I remember seeing a documentary about it and one of the theories was that an asteroid hit the earth and the impact + the heat mixed the chemicals and triggered it
 
Last edited:

Sere

Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
323
No offense taken but I'm pretty sure there is nothing known about that "trigger". It's not like I'll find a documentary showing the very first life form that suddenly went "Oh I should write a complex thingy that will evolve into a perfect eye in 300.000 years or whatever it took,can't remember. That's what I wanted to say. I'm not in awe that a lifeform managed to create it,I'd like to know what exactly made that specific lifeform develop an eye and how did it know what to do and how to "create" it,magic right? As for the near-certain chance,they are trying to "create" life for years now and have not been successful,trying to recreate the moment and constantly failing,creating something that truly lives from certain chemicals ain't exactly easy,lol. I remember seeing a documentary about it and one of the theories was that an asteroid hit the earth and the impact + the heat mixed the chemicals and triggered it
It's this kind of people that have me questioning my agnosticism and contemplating full-blown atheism.
 

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
No offense taken but I'm pretty sure there is nothing known about that "trigger".
Then you would be wrong. Let's go over the basics.

There's two separate things that you're conflating here. One is evolution, the other is abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis details how life began, and it's what you refer to when you say "creating something that truly lives". In order to get life from matter, you first need to get organic compounds. Then you need those organic compounds to form a simple self-copy mechanism (early DNA). That is life. And that is when abiogenesis ends.
The experiments you allude to have shown that you can create organic compounds from simple matter and energy. We have not yet, however, been able to simulate the creation of DNA. This is why we're investigating the possibility of life originating on other planets (with different conditions than earth), or proposing, if I may, opposing views and theories. Until we're able to replicate and find the conditions in which life began, we won't know for certain how it did. Chances are, the process by which DNA was created is very long and not something you can do in a single human lifetime.

Evolution, however, has been tested and fully understood. It takes over the second life begins - the second that molecule starts replicating itself. It details the process by which that "perfect eye" (btw, the human eye has several structural flaws that make it incredibly shit as a sensory organ no matter how awesome it looks from a distance) goes from basically nothing into the very complex organ of today. How does it work?
To simplify it, DNA is really, really small. Because it's really small, it's affected by things that work at an atomic level. Radiation works at an atomic level. There is radiation everywhere in the cosmos, left over from supernovas, collisions etc. It's bombarding you right now, passing through you. You're not affected because you are big, and there's not a lot of it. But DNA is small. Radiation is basically atoms that are magnetized. As they pass near or through the DNA, they move its atoms around because magnetism. This is not a random process, but it is unpredictable. With its atoms rearranged, the DNA now copies itself a million times. It becomes DNA's retarded cousin x1.000.000. This repeats for every piece of DNA that is affected. Most of them die. Some of them actually fare better. Some of DNA's retarded cousins then get their atoms magnetized too. And so on, and so on, and so on, for like a billion years.
On a macro scale, it's more or less the same thing. Living organism X has children. DNA is imperfect, therefore children imperfect. Some more imperfect than others. Most of the super-imperfect ones die quickly. But sometimes the imperfect ones breed and make a shitton of kids. About half of those kids will be just as imperfect as the father. And so on.

The world is cruel and harsh though. Over many years and generations, imperfections don't survive unless they're not actually imperfections, but improvements. A frog that is poisonous survives because shit doesn't eat it. All of its non-poisonous brothers though, they're off the food chain. This is not a random process. This is throwing a million million piles of shit at a wall and selecting the one that most resembles a snowflake. Of course, one's gonna be pretty damn close to a snowflake just because of the amount of times you tried. And then you copy that a million million times and try again. Natural selection isn't random.

It's lengthy though. Since mutations are at the genetic level, they're incredibly gradual. If one generation is 1% smarter than the others, chances are no one will notice until that smarter one takes the slightly better stick instead of the bad stick and doesn't get eaten by the tiger. Slowly, through life and death, very, very small changes are done and tested on the habitat of the planet. And only the best adapted ones survive.

As for the eye, it started out as a very simple light sensor when we were fish. Maybe we didn't even "see" light back then, just felt it when the sun shined on us more. For a more in-depth explanation, I'd recommend watching the new season of Cosmos, they actually go into detail on how the human eye evolved and how it got to where it is now.

The easiest application of evolution and the fastest one to see the results of is dog breeding. See all those breeds of dogs? We made wolves fuck eachother and killed the puppies we didn't like. And then we made the ones we liked fuck eachother. And so on and so on for about 20.000 years. Therefore, poodles. You think dogs are man's best friend because that's how they are? Nah bitch. That's how WE made them.
 
Last edited:

Bavanai

Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
909
Why do you keep juggling the idea that my opinions are based on "feelings", are you that jaded and arrogant as to believe that anyone that doesn't share your worldview is either emotional or stupid?

I asked myself "considering what I have learned about how the world works till now, what's more likely? That a number of improbable random actions with no trigger or external force led to the development of life, the DNA, stc from dead stuff? Or that that process was at least guided? "

I have yet to see nature forming a complex mechanical watch out of pure chance. Until I see something like that, to me the world has a watchmaker.
 
Last edited:

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
Why do you keep juggling the idea that my opinions are based on "feelings", are you that jaded and arrogant as to believe that anyone that doesn't share your worldview is either emotional or stupid?
Because they're not based on knowledge, as you show just one paragraph lower, in which you practice god of the gaps reasoning based on your faulty knowledge that things are "random" or "improbable". You are wrong in both cases, and when you make conclusions from false assumptions, you expect me to acknowledge them as logically sound?

To be clear, this is not me condemning you for having different opinions. If the reasoning and documentation behind them was sound I'd have no problem with them. I have no problem with some of your political beliefs even though I disagree with them. But science isn't a matter of opinion.

Yeah I remember when we used to talk about randomness in genetic mutations. Neither of us understood evolution properly back then. I've read books since then, learned new things. Seems like you, on the other hand, have regressed into "why don't we find new life in peanut butter" reasoning.
 

Bavanai

Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
909
You misunderstood one important point of mine - I don't claim that evolution doesn't exist, it exists you can even see it in pathogens when they develop resistance to antibiotics and shit - that's an observable undeniable fact. What I'm saying is that evolution doesn't explain everything, like the different branches of life - viruses, bacteria, plants, etc. Nor can it prove that a couple of photoreceptive cells evolved into the eye - more than once. It also doesn't explain how mammals evolved different reproduction modes - marsupial vs placental. And a lot more problems.
 

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
You misunderstood one important point of mine - I don't claim that evolution doesn't exist, it exists you can even see it in pathogens when they develop resistance to antibiotics and shit - that's an observable undeniable fact. What I'm saying is that evolution doesn't explain everything, like the different branches of life - viruses, bacteria, plants, etc. Nor can it prove that a couple of photoreceptive cells evolved into the eye - more than once. It also doesn't explain how mammals evolved different reproduction modes - marsupial vs placental. And a lot more problems.
"I can understand microevolution, I just don't believe in macroevolution." Another argument that's tossed around. And it's really based on just raising the goalpost, because what's defined as "macro" evolution is something you don't see within your lifetime, or even within several lifetimes, so there's a silly gotcha argument hiding in "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't work, fuck all of those other details".
Evolution is the explanation of how life came from a single-celled organism into the massively diverse spectrum we see today over billions of years. It's not the hypothesis that things mutate. It's a theory that works in practice, has applications, makes reliable predictions and is used as the basis of some branches of medicine, like HIV research. The idea that small organisms can become something completely different while big ones can't is based entirely on ignorance and follows no logical path. And what I mean by that is you have nothing to indicate that it isn't possible and you're believing this despite people being born all the time with 3 arms, skin inside out, conjoined, with tails and all sorts of other shit.

But that's fine; don't believe it. You could remain skeptical, or you could have something more tangible, a different theory that stood up to scrutiny and could reasonably be taken as an alternati-

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

A hypothesis that explains nothing, makes no reliable predictions, cannot possibly be tested, has no useful applications and is inconsistent. That's your choice.

No. No this is not okay. This is on the level of geocentrism.
 

Sere

Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
323
Why do you keep juggling the idea that my opinions are based on "feelings", are you that jaded and arrogant as to believe that anyone that doesn't share your worldview is either emotional or stupid?

I asked myself "considering what I have learned about how the world works till now, what's more likely? That a number of improbable random actions with no trigger or external force led to the development of life, the DNA, stc from dead stuff? Or that that process was at least guided? "

I have yet to see nature forming a complex mechanical watch out of pure chance. Until I see something like that, to me the world has an invisible yet omniscient and omnipotent watchmaker.
Fixed. I could go on with how he decided to "design and allow" (and sometimes condone) in his grand creation evils such as pedophila, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, fratricide, racism ... well, the list can go on but what's the point? I won't change your point of view with reason. And ofc, I do expect that sane christian argument that God is not responsible for the evil in the world. That's all satan and mean people; god's repsonsible only for the good stuff.

Hf with religion.
 

Bavanai

Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
909
Fixed. I could go on with how he decided to "design and allow" (and sometimes condone) in his grand creation evils such as pedophila, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, fratricide, racism ... well, the list can go on but what's the point? I won't change your point of view with reason. And ofc, I do expect that sane christian argument that God is not responsible for the evil in the world. That's all satan and mean people; god's repsonsible only for the good stuff.

Hf with religion.
lol. You're the exact copy of myself when I was 16 years old. You won't change my view not because I don't reason as you seem to imply, you won't change my view because the views you currently hold I have held for many years and I don't find them relevant or valid anymore.

Anyway - excuse me, but I can't seem to find the paragraph where I claimed that an "invisible yet omniscient and omnipotent" watchmaker is responsible for all of this. Please, do show me where I made such a claim because I do have a history of drug abuse and my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Imagine a terrarium full of ants. They are some scientist's experiment. Do the ants know that there's a scientist responsible for their existence? If they were able to reason, wouldn't the logical conclusion for them be that there is no creator because they can't see him? Wouldn't he be invisible for the ants? In case you don't understand the analogy, the ants are humans, the scientist is whomever created life.
 
Last edited:

Shade

Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
516
Imagine a terrarium full of ants. They are some scientist's experiment. Do the ants know that there's a scientist responsible for their existence? If they were able to reason, wouldn't the logical conclusion for them be that there is no creator because they can't see him? Wouldn't he be invisible for the ants? In case you don't understand the analogy, the ants are humans, the scientist is whomever created life.
You're conflating science with (really awful, really rudimentary) philosophy.


But enough about that! Shit son I didn't know scientists had the power to create ants
 

Sere

Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
323
Anyway - excuse me, but I can't seem to find the paragraph where I claimed that an "invisible yet omniscient and omnipotent" watchmaker is responsible for all of this. Please, do show me where I made such a claim because I do have a history of drug abuse and my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

Imagine a terrarium full of ants. They are some scientist's experiment. Do the ants know that there's a scientist responsible for their existence? If they were able to reason, wouldn't the logical conclusion for them be that there is no creator because they can't see him? Wouldn't he be invisible for the ants? In case you don't understand the analogy, the ants are humans, the scientist is whomever created life.
Ok, seems i need to spell it out. The word "Fixed" hints towards irony, sarcasm. I took the liberty of inserting "omniscient and omnipotent" since according to the bible, god is omniscient and omnipotent. (Why is it that non believers seem to know the bible better than believers?)
As for "invisible", I admit, that's totally me. Invisible because no1 has ever seen god. Much like Santa, the Tooth Fairy etc. At least the latter don't claim dominion over all things and send you to hell if you disobey one of their 10 things from the special list. (Mind you, a special list sent via a burning bush, on a mountain, to a single person, with no1 else around except Moses and said god. Covenient, wouldn't you agree?)

I'm sorry to hear these were your views at 16. Sure, I know most people tend to lose their lucidity as they grow older but fuck man, yours is sure going away fast! You're like a Bejamin Button of sorts.

Now, I know shade pointed this out, but it's so fun to see it written down again so ... how are scientists responsible for the existence of some ants?
 
Last edited:

HellFire

Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
690
Until we're able to replicate and find the conditions in which life began, we won't know for certain how it did.
And that's what I told you before,I'd love to see the exact moment and how it happened. That's why I'm saying it's highly unlikely but somehow it did and I wish to live to see the day when they will be able to re create the moment.
 

HellFire

Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
690
This job is starting to depress me pretty badly,over 12 hours every day and I also work saturdays,which pretty much makes it a 6 day / week job. Not sure how long I will stay here.
 

Bavanai

Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
909
This job is starting to depress me pretty badly,over 12 hours every day and I also work saturdays,which pretty much makes it a 6 day / week job. Not sure how long I will stay here.
there had to be a catch.
 

Facebook

Discord

Members online

No members online now.
Top Bottom